Blog

Looking at one of our Cabinet Ministers, it looks like they rather llke sitting down and eating cake. They do not look lean, mean and hungry. Rather they look comfortable, complacent, relaxed maybe, easy going, happy in their success. Luxuriating in what success has brought – not driven to achieve more….

Most of the Cabinet have a ’rounded’ look – double chins, carryng a bit of weight. Starmer looks flabby to the point of unwell. Can any of them get into their clothes from when they were younger?

Think of people like Wes Streeting…..

If they are long on self-indulgence – how likely is it that they are also self disciplined? Favourite quote is ‘ I’ll just have one more pie’….

They do not look fit, energetic, full of vim…..

And therefore how likely is it that they will make tough decisions – tough on themselves and tough on others – such as reducing the welfare bill?

And as unhealthy people, they are in the diabetes waiting room, and generally about to become burdens on the NHS. They just do not look right

So presumably they will continue to waddle around in their comfort zone…… .

The U.K. is living beyond it’s means. We are spending more than we earn. The government is blowing money on welfare and other things.

National debt is huge and becoming more expensive to serice. Taxation as a source of funding is at it’s limit.

Rather than reduce expenditure, the ‘left’ have developed the spurious ‘borrow to invest’ argument. Heaven forbid they would agree on sensible or tough decisions. They just want to go down the ‘never never’ route……

It sounds attractive, does it not? We can access more dosh by borrowing it on legitimate grounds. Unfortunately the rationalisation is nonsense.

You could possibly borrow extra money for a toll bridge. But even then the (in that form generally) extra borrowing, will overall, increase the interest rate we pay on all our borrowing. Thereby making the economics ever more difficult.

But let’s assume the bridge is built, and lots of people use it. If it helps expand the economy that would be good. The toll revenue can pay back the borrowing, like a house mortgage, over a number of years. But if there is no more economic activity, and people just use the bridge as it is more convenient, they face higher living costs – the tolls – so are worse off.

If you are lucky, a new road or power grid can help expand the economy. There can even be a multiplier effect – the new road generates more journeys, which can then increase demand for fuel or vehicles and so on…… If the economy propspers, higher productivy, the return can exceed the borrowing cost, and we make money (growth!).

However, ask yourself what kinds of projects a socialist government is likely to prioritise?

Is it going to be ‘hard headed’ business investments – for example that might increase productity but reduce jobs (for example investment in robots, AI, and so on)?

It’s east to speculate the likely favoured projects.

Nationalisation – money borrowed to ‘buy back’ utililies and transport services. Under the dead hand of government bureaucracy they may perform worse than as regulated private sector monoplies. And certainly not generate extra revenue to repay the borrowing.

State subsidisation – nationalisation by another name, for ‘dead duck’ industries. Think of steel, ship building, the car industry. The money would please the trade unions, short term. But in fact of course it is being ‘pissed away’, with poor managers failing to turn round the businesses. Probably they are simply a dead loss, the end of a road……. And of course will not make the commercial return (profit) to repay the borrowing.

The left will try to argue that public sector investment, for example hospitals and schools, are good for the economy. However, productivity in the NHS appears not to be managed, so capital investment is just another ‘pot to piss in’, promising something that will never be delivered. So where would the revenue come from to repay the borrowing?

Mad Ed Millibrand would argue for ‘green’ investment. We have solar water and solar electricty at home – in sunny south spain – and if the installation costs are managed (ie DIY) it works well. By contrast, Ed proposes more wind generation, for example, when we already have to pay people not to generate too much electicity on windy days.

Clearly ‘green’ is akin to ‘kindergarten’. You need as a priority an enhanced ‘national grid to get electiricity where it is needed for AI centres and to meet the electric car strategy (which of course in itself is nuts). And of course what about nights and cloudy, windless, days? You need battery (or hydro-electric) power as backup.

So an incoherent ‘green’ strategy will not work, and not payback the borrowing. Such peole should not be trusted to borrow money on our behalf.

Let me finish with two examples. I assume Gordon Brown borrowed money to build two aircraft carriers. They may have been good for politics in Scotland. Were they good ‘investments’? Given the ongoing technical problems they were not a good technical project. We do not have enough support ships to escort them at sea.

So the ‘left’ that supports defence as a concept might spend money this way. But will they ‘make money’ to pay back the borrowing. Obviously not, it just makes us more indebted, and dependant on foreign lenders in the bond market.

The crowning glory is of course HS2. The totally gormless people involved in HS2 should not even be allowed to manage their own money, let alone borrow on our behalf. Their rhetoric about ‘cost benefit analysis’ is a complete joke – you might get to a city five minutes earlier, but does this have a collective value of ‘a billion.a year’? If we can’t manage projects we shouldn’t borrow to fund them. By all means blow our savings – wasted money – but don’t borrow more……..

Clearly HS2 is a disaster, over cost, over time, reduced specification. Covid showed you don’t need to travel, so the whole concept is to some extend out of date. Self driving coaches will probably be a real competitor. A relative just paid £334 for a day return rail ticket from Chester to London. HS2 will probably be more expensive, with just a fast ride from London to Birmingham?

What chance is there that it will make a good return on the investment, so we could repay the borrowing?

And you can imagine a left wing government ‘investing’ this borrowed money in ‘woke’ projects – extra ‘alternative’ toilets in government buildings for ‘non binary’ people. Buying pink coloured police cars. Building new prisons for those that elect, post conviction, to ‘change gender’. None of which of course will xzgenerate money to pay back the borrowing.

All of this course just gives an excuse to borrow more, to spend more,and the hell with the long term….. Maybe please the electorate at the next election, unless the problems come home to roost more quickly

Clearly you can’t change sex, Idon’t believe you can change gender. You could become ‘like a woman’ but that doesn’t make you a woman.

If you’ve had your penis removed, and hormone treament, you get closer to being ‘a woman’. But it’s a joke to suggest you can be a woman if you still have your penis (and beard……).

There has to be something wrong with such people (with a penis) that want to ‘self i.d.’ as a women, and use women’s facilities (and participate in women’s sport).

There is an argument that there are social norms to which people should conform……

Imagine that someone wants to ‘self i.d.’ as a dog. Some teachers would support this with a child, and not tell the parents….. A bit like self i.d. as the opposite sex…..

So far so good. You have a right to ‘self i.d.’ as anything. But what happens when you say that self i.d. as a dog means not wearing clothes? Is that o.k.?

If you then argue that you should be able to urinate in the streets – and then argue that defecation in the streets is o.k.? Because you are a dog.

Presumably at some stage sanity prevails, and limits are put on self i.d.?

It probably starts with not putting male rapists that self i.d. (for a more congenial prison existence) in femlae prisons……….

The UK is in a very difficult position economically and politically. For various reasons, including Brexit, Covid, and the Ukraine war driving up food costs, people feel no better off than a decade ago.

The latest government, rewarding trade unions with pay rises, and increasing business costs (national insurance rises, rates increases and minimum wage increases), make things much worse and kill growth.

In the meantime, letting welfare costs balloon whilst under-investing in defence make us look stupid. Everyone knows we are living beyond our means.

It is not so much failing to fix the roof while the sun shines as actually selling the roof…….

In all of this the government does not have a free hand. Yes they could print money, but that would cause interest rates to go up, and increase inflation.

And our level of national debt, meaning we need huge oveseas funding, exposes us to the expert eye of people who lend money globally. That is why the rates we’re paying to borrow (gilts etc) is rising.

So people are not happy with centre right or centre left options. Both have made a mess of things.

Extreme right and left are popular but not an option for ‘grown ups’. The extreme right do not have much of a strategy – kicking out immigrants (of which we need lots of good ones) and possibly restricting abortion. You’d have to be nuts to support the extreme left (anything left of centre left in fact). They want to borrow more, spend more on welfare, becme ever more woke (women with penises!), blindly pursue net zero and possibly even disarm.

These are ‘broad brush’ comments – I can ‘drill down’ and justify them if wanted.

Core to our future existence, our success, is for the nation to thrive economically, for business to be successful and to grow. Everything else flows from that.

It may be that the left do not understand this – possibly just not interested – and I suppose this is understandable (but not acceptable) if you’ve only ever worked in the public and voluntary sectors.

The point of this blog is to wonder whether the main problem in the UK is the one of ‘envy versus aspiration’. Has liberal education brainwashed people into the ‘envy’ state.

They seem to envy, and disapprove of the rich and successful. Business people are put in this category – including the self employed, who generally work harder for less money than those cushioned by comfortable public sector jobs. And of course, self employment comes with out holiday pay, sick pay or pensions. That’s why the self employed go sick less often than people in the public sector.

That is why the left regard business and employers as ‘cash cows’ – tax the enemy – and reduce inequalities.

And the result of course is less growth, a ‘smaller cake’ to share.

The centre right are more likely to believe in ‘aspiration’ – work hard and take risks to improve your and your families situation. Work to put bread on the table, rather than try to claim benefits.

And given that it is business, from the self employed to billionaires, that create wealth – growth – we need to support them.

The left think about the less able – maybe they should think more about the ‘more able’ who can work to create a better future for everyone. Unfortunately they seem to be consumed by their own envy.

.

Some ‘trans women’ – post surgery – want to be as close as possible to being ‘a woman’.

You could wonder however about the thinking of those still with penises, and with no intention of forgoing them. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually thinks of them as being anywhere near ‘a woman’.

However, the trans lobby still seems fixated on the idea of ‘self i.d.’, so anyone, with or without a penis, can claim to be ‘a woman’. It follows that they can then use female changing facilities, enter women’s sports, and require to be kept in women’s prisons….

Call me ‘old fashioned’ if you will – or just part of the grown up sensible majority – but I cannot see why women should have to accept people with penises in their changing rooms. But my more important point would be to ask why these ‘male bodied’ people want to use female changing facilities. They have not gone through the ‘right of passage’ (ie hormones, surgery, etc) to make any reasonable claim to be ‘women’.

I have a nasty feeling that these ‘men’ actually want to exercise power over women. They have retained their male ‘sense of superiority’ and can now bully women. A power trip.

You may say this is debatable. Maybe. But look at female sports. No decent ‘gentleman’ would want to play sport against women on an unfair basis. The ‘trans men’ are typically bigger and stronger. It is not fair competition. And where sports involve physical confrontation (boxing, rugby and so on) it is dangerous. So why don’t these supposedly ‘trans women’ actually play fair with their ‘sisters’. Either they simply want to win – egocentric – but maybe they want to ‘put the real women’ in their place. Male dominance, taking it out on the women…..mysogeny.

Likewise, if you’ve committed violent sexual offences against women, a ‘gentleman’ would not ask to be jailed alongside women. Naturally the women will be fearful. The ‘trans women’ are not participating in any sense of ‘sisterhood’ and giving any consideration of the womens’ feelings. It’s unlikely that they have suddenly decided to ‘change sex/gender’ after the Court judgement. More likely they like the idea of close contct with potentially vulnerable women. It’s puttting foxes in chicken houses….. a good bit of male dominance.

And of course a lot of men are very vocal about the ‘rights of trans women’. They are choosing not to consider the real women’s rights and feelings – maybe it’s a form of sexism? Another example of men trying to bully women……

I read recently that ‘food allergies’ could be grounds for an application for welfare benefits.

It would seem therefore that I have many reasons to be eligible for universal credit, unemployment benefit, welfare benefits, carers allowances and disability transport.

Clearly my aversion to green food is a form of disability. Work is difficult when I am concerned about my diet. My indifference to alcohol makes socialising difficult. I think I am probably allergic to cigarette smoke so again workplace environments, and their entrances, are difficult for me. All this means I need to lead a life distanced from society so work is impossible.

I suffer from stress and anxiety. My views on LGBT and ‘trans’ are in line with the moderate majority, but I am fearful that I am out of line with the woke left. I worry about the state of the country. I am stressed by the lack of intelligence in our leaders. After the Brxit vote, I am anxious as to what further damage our democracy can do to us.

I am allergic to a hierarchical approach to the workplace, I see being managed as impacting on my mental health and a breach of my human rights. The threat of discipline leaves me unable to face work. I would work at home, obviously an easier option, but there I suffer from a psychological sense of isolation which harms my mental health.

I have multiple ‘ups and downs’ in my state of mind, I believe this is clearly symptomatic of my manic depression.

I no longer feel part of the society in which I live, the world has changed and I do not approve, which leaves me with paranoid feelings.

I now live in Spain, and need to learn the Spanish language. Maths I find easy, but I seem to have a mental block when it comes to languages, so I appear to have a linguistic learning disability.

My weight fluctuates and I often feel unable to face people due to my negative self image, which means I suffer from agrophobia.

Clearly I cannot cope on my own in these circumstances and need somebody in constant attendance to ensure my safety. Hence the need for the maximum carers allowance.

Given my alientation from society, I cannot use public transport. Hence the need for a ‘motability’ vehicle. I also need a dedicated parking space outside my house. Please arrange for a pre 2011 vehicle in good condition, I cannot cope with modern touch screens, warning bleeps, and things like ‘lane control’. They make me ill.

Would you please simply ‘sign off’ and process this application.

Any challenge or execise of authority, questioning my just cause, will prompt a mental health breakdown, contrary to my human rights.

Yours.

Faith seems to be something people possess independant of facts, science, and any sort of valid evidence.

So are there any facts that support faith?

Some ‘believers’ try to argue that some ‘real world’ considerations support their belief. For example they would argue that the efficacy of prayer and the existence of miracles justify their belief. But the reality is that prayer does not work, proven by studies, and I have yet to come across any reasonable support and argument for any miracle. Believe it if you want, but don’t pretend it has a factual basis.

In reverse, faith leads people to claim ‘facts’ in the real world. What’s intersting is that they then pervert logic to try to fit their faith drven ‘facts’.

‘Creation’ – in seven days, 6000 years ago, is one product of ‘faith’. If you challenge the ‘seven days’ – they start saying that ‘a day’ can be longer than ’24 hours’. Likewise the date of ‘Adam and Eve’ could be much earlier – but where would the dinosaurs fit, for example.

Noah’s flood is another religious claim – I asked how Noah collected kangaroos, and got told it happened when ‘continental drift’ linked Australia and Asia. Presumably to get Capybaras, Latin America was linked to Africa?? And when the Bible (the immutable word of God) said the Earth was flooded to the tops of the mountains, during the Flood – I said Everest was quite high, and got told that of course it’s height has varied significantly over time (only the credulous would sign off the Flood, depth and timescale on this basis).

Then of course God needed the ‘Virgin Mary’ and the Resurrection to rationalise his son coming to Earth, and living and dying and so on. Again. how likely are these stories for real?

So, the problem with Faith is that it results in people making ridiculous claims.

And, actually, it gets worse. Once you sign up to ‘Your Faith’, you actually have to believe and claim that it is the ‘One True Faith’.

Obviously more people believe other things, that other Gods are ‘the True God’. So you are out-numbered. And your ‘minority view’ just happens to be, usually, your local faith. If you had been brought up elsewhere, with the need or inclination to ‘believe’, you would amost certainly believe the faith in that other place.

Food for thought, eh?

If Trump was a better man he would have included the following points in his ceasefire proposal:

Recognition of Palestine as an independant State.

Require Israel to withdraw all Settlements from the West Bank (ie vacate them).

Require Iran to give women full and equal rights.

Require Iran to hold democratic elections.

Recognise that there is no ‘one true faith’ and that America recognises and respects all faiths.

The first two points delivers some justice to the Palestinians and this would hopfully command repect from the Arab States.

The third and fourth points would improve the lot of Iranian people, get their support, plus act as a strong example to the other States in the Region.

The fifth point would walk America back from trying to behave like ‘their God’ was the superior God, and stop America sounding like this was a religious war, akin to a crusade. This demonstration of religious tolerance would hopefully be a good example to Christians, Jews and Arabs in the Region.

Better American Presidents of recent years might aspire to a good standard of behaviour: clearly Trump is not a good man, and would not act as a role model. You’d hope one day he would look in the mirror and appreciate the horrendous ‘legacy’ he will leave behind him…..

It would seem to be self evident that the U.K. needs a successsful business base.

I read recently that much of the Left likes the idea of increasing borrowing, and funding it by printing money. That would increase the demand for ‘real’ goods, which without an increase in production will lead to heavy inflation. Increasing borrowing is not only difficult (it will lead to higher interest rates as our creditworthyness decreases), but it is patently obvious (at least to me) that we shouldn’t be living beyond our means

A lot of the left is into ‘tax and spend’ – they like the idea of ‘the state’ spending money, and funding their pet schemes, such as yet more money on welfare. A pleasant indulgence. They seem less interested in spending money on real priorities, like defence.

The real problem is the ‘tax’ component. There seems to be an attitude that the private sector is a ‘cash cow’ – you can just take more and more of ‘their money’ and spend it on ‘us’. Maybe it is more than the ‘cash cow’ concept – taking their money is maybe a punishment for being successful, a product of greed and envy.

Remember of course that much of ‘the left’ have only worked in the public and volontary sector, plus a few that are independantly wealthy and privileged, but keep it quiet. So they know little about business and have little interest.

If you look at the ‘far right’ I am reallly not sure what is their attitude to business? I suspect they are relatively inclined to just ignore it, and focus on other issues such as immigration.

Sensible people know that we have a crisis with business. High energy costs, increased minimum wage, cheaper overseas production….

Moreover high personal tax rates disincentivises those that we need to work hard creating and expanding businesses.

We lack economic resilience, we imagined that ‘globalisation’ would mean that manufactured products (and food) would always be available from around the world, and at cheap prices.

Recent international events make it clear that we need to be closer to self sufficient in many sectors. Being too dependant on the U.S. is not wise (eg the F35 plane). We need to go it alone on many things, but then also collaborate with what are likely to be our close long term allies – we share a culture with Western European coutries, I think we should reinforce our links to Eastern European countries (good people in Poland and Ukraine for example), and the Old Commonwealth countries and some of the New Commonwealth (eg Canada, Australia, New Zealand).

We need to strengthen our prescence in many sectors, defence, marine engineering and ship building, steel production and so on.

It seems to me that the only Party that has any taste for this is the Conservative Party. Traditionally they have run the economy well, for Labour to then abuse it…..

In part we need to ‘free up’ the private sector, the business sector. Go for ‘small government’, reduce the state interference in business whereever possible – reduce the rules and regulations.

Civil servants create jobs, roles and committees for civil servants. They then create policies and procedures – many of which are laborious but essentially ‘tick in the box’ exercises for businesses.

A friend wanted to open a shop – needed an ‘approval’ visit from a local authority – got told the first appointment available was in a month’s time. He’d been working his socks off to get the place open, needed the incoming cash flow, but just had to sit on his hands for a month…..

All the political parties should reflect on the fact that it is business that creates wealth, that enables the funding of social policies – we are close to killing this goose that creates the golden eggs…….

This is a repeat of previouly argued cases but it warrants repetition.

It would seem that there can be many Gods, just one God, or no Gods.

The ‘many Gods’ argument would include all types of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, along with Hindu, Bhuddist and other faiths.

This would suggest that either there are ‘many Heavens’ or that all the faiths occupy and share ‘one Heaven’.

Either answer contradicts the idea of most faiths that theirs is ‘the one true faith. Could even different Christian faiths share one Heaven – with their different beliefs for example about equality for women or homosexuality? Could a Catholic Priest and a Gay Paster be happy neighbours in Heaven – would East African Church members live alongside gay men in Heaven? Could they even agree whether the shops should open on Sundays?

And of course the idea of Jews, Muslims and Christians co-existing in one heaven seems unlikely.

The alternative of many Gods in many Heavens seems unworkable. Are they located side by side? And would they co-exist peacably – or would there be tensions and religious wars between Heavens?

So, only one God seems more likely.

It seems likely that each faith would argue that they are the only true faith, and only they will go to the one God (theirs) in their Heaven.

Western people seem to have an arrogance and think that their religion(s) would rank first amongst religions.

People need to appreicate that each faith tends to be believe that only they are right. And hence at least all but one are wrong…….

People in my local church ‘believe’ – and seem to think that their faith is the one true faith, more valid than all the others. Hence they are inclined to brainwash their children in that belief, and want to do missionary work to convert others to the only valid faith.

Some fudge the issue, as if it is not only their church that is right, but all Christianity. But Mormons have different beliefs to the Amish, to Catholics, to Jehovah Witnesses, and so on. In truth they have different belief (which is why there are separate religions within Christianity).

And Heaven forbid anyone arguing that maybe, just maybe, the one true faith exists outside Christianity.

This is also the moment to be clear about ‘faith’ and ‘belief’. There is of course no concrete evidence that any God exists. Certainly not ‘only your God’

You happen to believe what you believe, but you should accept it is only your personal belief. It is possible for this to do no harm, although the common conflicts between different faiths makes this questionable.

As such you should accept that it is only your faith, and many many others around the world believe other things, with equal validity.

And you should recognise the limits of your (non-scientific) beliefs. For example there is no evidence that prayer works, nor that miracles truly happen.

The third option is that there is no God. If you take this as a hypothesis, there would be no evidence that you were wrong.

This option may seem negative, but you can still argue that ‘goodness’ exists, and that we should all behave like good neighbours, using the ‘good samaritan’ as an example to live by.

And, of course, this would stop the possibility of there being relgious wars, like at this moment what Trump and Hegseth

seem to be pursuing by way of a ‘crusade’ against Iran.